LDS Thesis #59: It uses the term “official doctrine” as a means of silencing critics and dissents even though there is no formal, codified definition for what constitutes “official doctrine”. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE: Mormon Critic Keith Walker humorously illustrated the problem in this short video: youtube/watch?v=mzypKxr9knA And as the editor of Mormon Think noted well regarding the only known article on the church website to address the issue: This article on the Churchs official website [mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine ] does not clarify which particular teachings one should take as doctrine and which should be considered merely advice. If anything, it seems to muddy the issue when it says that Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. If doctrine is not identified, how can members receive a confirmation of Church doctrine? If the statement also encompasses the concept that members must first gain a spiritual understanding of what is Church doctrine, what is the purpose of modern prophets and apostles? (mormonthink/prophetsweb.htm#whatisconsidereddoctrine ) Graphic credits: LDS PR Department and the Curse of Cain, Cal Grondahl, Sunstone Magazine Caption: We take the Curse of Cain and slide it over to that little trash can, and thats that! Donald Jessee, LDS Church Public Affairs department, letter to Timothy Killian; angelfire/mo2/blackmormon/publicaffairs.html Were trying to change our image, Cal Grondahl, The Standard-Examiner
Posted on: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 20:22:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015